Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to disentangle the various aspects of the
function and organization of scientific research in the systems of higher
education of Britain, France, Germany and the U.S. by tracing their
development from the beginning of the 19th century to the present day.
Until the 1930s, these four major systems of higher education served as
models for the rest of the world. By that time the Soviet system of higher
education and research started to develop its unique features but its
importance was still limited. 1 This was also the case with Japan, which
began to develop into an independent scientific center only during the
1960s. Therefore, these two countries will not be treated systematically in
this paper.
Complex institutional arrangements, such as the place of research in an
educational setting, develop over time and space in an unpredictable
fashion. Arrangements based on ideas and intentions, formed under given
conditions, are altered as a result of experience, changes in the conditions,
and the emergence of new ideas and intentions. The language in which the
original ideas had been formulated might nevertheless be retained. This is
usually the case, since changes in institutional arrangements occur piece-
meal, at different times and in different places. Those who make these
changes have practical and specific interests, and they rarely have the time
and motivation to think about the broader and more long-range impli-
cations. In fact, it m a y be in their interest to divert attention from these
implications.
With time, the discrepancy between the professed aims and the reality
becomes disturbing, since it results in misunderstandings, and reduces the
effectiveness of language as a convenient map or guide for action. It is
one of the tasks of the sociologist to compare the language in which
institutional arrangements are formulated with their actual functioning,
and thus help to overcome these difficulties. The present paper is intended
as a contribution to this end.
Historical development
Until the end of the 18th century, universities were engaged in the
education of the professional, administrative, and in some cases, the
political 61ites. University teachers were usually learned men, and quite a
few of them engaged in what would today be called scholarly research in
SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 45
such fields as law, philosophy, theology, classical languages, literature,
and science. Natural sciences did not form an important part of the curri-
cula of the universities, except, to some extent, in the medical faculty.
Since few branches of science were relevant to medical practice in those
days, only on occasion did professors of the medical faculty engage in
scientific research, and even those who did, did not consider this as part of
their formal duties, or "role"; nor did they, or anyone else, consider the
universities as institutions of research. The only institutions which
supported science in tile 18th century (there were no institutions of organ-
ized research) were the academies. 2
Tile combination, or as it was called, the " u n i t y of teaching and re-
search" in a single role - that of the university professor - and in a single
institution - the university - emerged only at the beginning of the 19th
century. In the University of Berlin, founded in 1809, and soon thereafter
in the other German language universities, the unity of these two functions
became a doctrine. " U n i t y " implied that tile two functions were organical-
ly connected so that separating them would be contrary to the "immanent
nature of research and teaching. 8 From the middle of the 19th century
this idea has been the most important theme in university reforms, and
in the establishment of new systems of higher education the world over.
However, as the contents, methods and functions of both teaching and
research changed, the practices associated with the general idea of tile
unity of teaching and research have altered too. Looking back, it is
possible to distinguish four different aspects of these changes.
These aspects are: (1) the personnel aspect; (2) the contents aspect;
(3) the method aspect; and (4) the organizational aspect.
(1) The personnel aspect, i.e. have academic teachers to be qualified and
productive researchers ? One of the most important decisions taken at the
establishment of the new type of German university was that contribution
to research was to be the principal qualification for an academic appoint-
ment. This led to a steep rise in the status of university professors. From
then on, in Germany, the criterion of their appointment was to be the same
as that of the members of official academies. Until then the status of the
professors ill the faculties of philosophy was about the same as the status
of teachers in tile upper grades of the better academic high schools today.
Only professors of law, medicine, and theology enjoyed higher status due
to the prestige of these professions. Afterwards, university professors in
Germany became an 61ite, irrespective of what they taught. 4
This upgrading of status could not have worked without a corresponding
upgrading of the faculty of philosophy (the equivalent of the American
faculty of arts and sciences). Until the early 19th century reforms, philo-
46 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID
Conclusion
The original conception of the unity of teaching and research envisioned a
small and highly selected group of teachers lecturing to a student audience
on topics related to the research of these teachers. It was assumed that
teaching by original researchers, even if it did not provide full coverage of
a field, would be more inspiring for able and advanced students than more
systematic teaching by merely competent instructors.
By the middle of the 19th century the idea of the unity of teaching and
research became associated with laboratory and seminar work. Originally,
it appears, participation in these activities was voluntary, and thus
56 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID
NOTES
1 j . D. BERNAL, The Social Functions o[ Science. L o n d o n : George Routledge,
1939, p. 194 (for a comparison of the Anglo-American, F r e n c h etc. 'circles').
2 On t h e s t a t e of t h e universities in t h e e i g h t e e n t h century, see A d a m SMITH,
The Wealth o[ Nations, B o o k V, Chapter 1, Article 2; see Mso Ren6 K6NIG, Vom
58 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID
Wesen der deutschen Universitiit. Berlin: Die Runde, 1935, pp. 17-27; see also,
Nicolas HANS, New Trends in Education in the Eighteenth Century. London: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul, 195 I, pp. 41-54.
3 F. SCHNABEL,Deutsche Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert. Vol. 2 Freiburg
im Breisgau: Herder, 1965, pp. 201-8.
4 H. BRtlNSCHWlG,La crise de l'Etat prussien d~l a / i n du X V I I I si~cIe et la gen~se
de la mentaIitd romantique. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France, 1947, pp. 161-86.
5 j . BEN-DAVID and A. ZLOCZOWER, "Universities and Academic Systems in
Modern Societies", European Journal o/Sociology, 3, 1962, pp. 52-4.
6 H . BRUNSCI-IWIG,loc. cir.
7 N. G. ANNAN, " T h e Intellectual Aristocracy", in J. PLUMB, Studies in Social
History. London: Longmans Green, 1955, pp. 241=87.
s j . BEN-DAVID, The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971, pp. 96-7.
9 Richard t-IOFSTADTER and Walter METZGER, The Development of Academic
Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955, pp. 124,
229-32.
10 Friedrich PAULSEN, The German University: Its Character and Historical
Development. New York: Macmillan, 1895, pp. 85-6.
11 F. SCHNABEL,loc. cir.
12 F. PAULSEN,Geschiehte des gelehrten Unterrichts. Leipzig: Veit, 1885, pp. 586-
89.
13 V. SCHNABEL,op. cir., pp. 219-20; and also Vol. 5, pp. 203-76; also R. Steven
TURNER, "The Growth of Professional Research in Prussia, 1818-1848", Princeton
N.J. : Princeton University, unpublished manuscript, 1971, p. 21-5.
14 A. FLEXNER, loc. cir., also TtIRNER, op. cir., p. 54--7.
15 R. B. PERRY, The Thought and Character o/ William James. Vol. 1. Boston:
Little, Brown, 1935, pp. 249-83; S. REZNICK, "The European Education of an
American Chemist and its Influence in Nineteenth Century America: Eben Norton
Horsford", Technology and Culture, July, 1970, pp. 366-88. I). FLEMING, William H.
Welch and the Rise o/ Modern Medicine. Boston: Little, Brown, 1954, pp. 32-54,
100-105.
16 j . BEN-DAVID and R. COLLINS, "Social Factors in the Origin of a New Science
The Case of Psychology", American Sociological Review, 4, 31, 1966, No. 4, pp. 451-
65.
1~ A. FLEXNER, Universities: American, English, German. London: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1968, pp. 42-5, 287, 314-15.
18 j. BEN-DAVID, op. cir., pp. 133--38.
10 D. S. L. CARDWELL, The Organization o/Science in England. London: Heine-
mann, 1957, p. 95.
20 j. BEN-DAVID, op. cir., p. 103.
21 Ibid, pp. 139-147.
22 Tile large inflow to the United States of scientists and engineers began in the
late 1950s, and reached a peak in 1967. See B. THOMAS, "Modern Migration', in
Walter ADAMS (ed.), The Brain Drain. New York: Macmillan, 1968, p. 44. I n 1958,
4032 engineers and 1108 scientists immigrated to the United States; in 1959, 3950
engineers and 1094 scientists; in 1960, 3354 engineers and 924 scientists; in 1963,
4014 engineers and 1397 scientists; in 1964, 3725 engineers and 1503 scientists; in
1966, 4920 engineers and 1570 scientists; and ill 1967, 8822 engineers and 1795
scientists. See, OECD Committee for Scientific and Technical Personnel, The Inter-
national Movement o/Scientists and Engineers, Part 1. Paris : OECD, 1970. p. 101.
~a Robert W. HODGE; Paul M. SIEGEL; Peter H. Rossi, "Occupational Prestige
in the United States, 1925-63", in R. BENDIX and S. M. LIPSET, Class, Status and
Power. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 1966, p. 324.
24 James A. DAvis, Undergraduate Career Decision. Chicago: Aldine, 1965, p. 201.
According to this report only 24 per cent of a representative sample of American
college students in 1961 did not have intentions to go to graduate school.
25 For Great Britain, see H. J. PERKIN, New Universities in the United Kingdom.
I n n o v a t i o n ill Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1969, pp. 58-60, 115-38, 163-70;
for France, see C. GRINGNON and J. C. PASSERON, French Experience Be/ore z968.
Innovation in Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1970, pp. 50-1, 99, 104-5, 131-33;
SCIENCE AND THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM 59
for Germany, see E. B6NING and K. ROELOFFS,Three German Universities. Innova-
tion in Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1970, pp. 34, 60-3, 68-9, 143.
26 Clark KERR, The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Mass. : H a r v a r d University
Press, 1964, p. 55.
27 The Development o] Higher Education, 1950-1967. Paris: OECD, The Edu-
cation Committee, 1970, p. 67.
2s Martin TRow, "The Expansion and Transformation of Higher Education".
Unpublished manuscript, September, 1970.
W I S S E N S C H A F T I?r HOCI-tSCI-IULBEREICH
Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, die verschiedenell Aspekte der Fullktioll und Orgallisation
wissellschaftlicher Forschullg ill den Systemen der terti~irell Bildullg yon GroB-
britallnien, Frankreich, Deutschlalld und den USA darzustellen, indem ihre Ellt-
wicklung vom Begilln des neullzehnten Jahrhullderts bis zum heutigen Tag zuriick-
verfolgt wird.
Mit der Griindullg der Berliner Ulliversit~Lt im Jahre 1809 wurde in Deutschland
das Kollzept der "Eillheit von Lehre und Forschung" erstmalig verwirklicht, ulld
somit w~lrde zum ersten Male Forschung in dell Universitgtsbereich einbezogen. I m
Laufe der Zeit wurde irides die geforderte Lehre r o l l Forschung ill zunehmelldem
MaBe oberfl~ichlicher durchgefiihrt, wiihrelld die Forschullg selbst sich mehr und
mehr vom formalell Curriculum der Universit~it weg ill die Institute bewegte, die
ullter der Kontrolle eines Professors standei1, der einen Lehrstuhl auf Lebellszeit
inllehatte. Zugleich wurde Forsehung und die Ausbildung der Studellten zu For-
scherll immer st~irker in systematischer F o r m und auf bestimmte Berufsbilder hin
ausgerichtet vermittelt. So h a t t e sick Deutschland in tier zweiten H~ilfte des 19.
Jahrhunderts zum weltweiten wissellschaftlichell Zentrum entwickelt, ulld die
deutsche Vorgehellsweise wnrde weithin imitiert. Obwohl die Professionalisierullg
der Forschung eille unbeabsichtigte Entwicklung in Deutschland darstellte, erwies
sic sich doch als ein Hauptziel fiir diejenigen, die nach dem deutschen Modell ellt-
sprechende Vorkehrungen in anderen LgllderI1 trafell.
Der Artikel vergleicht Organisatiollsprobleme professiolleller Wissenschaft in
GroBbritallnien, Frankreich und den USA und zeigt, wie das deutsche Modell in
jedem dieser Liillder adaptiert wurde. Ill GroBbritannien und Frankreich war sein
Einflul3 !licht so stark wie in den USA, da die Universitgten ill beidell enropgischen
Lglldern lloch als Illstitutiollen aufgefaBt wurden, die zur Lehre professioneller und
politischer Elitell dienten, ulld da zudem Ulliversitgtsprofessoren sowieso fiber ei!len
professiollellell Status verffigten. Ill dell USA hingegen brachte die Professionali-
siernllg yon Forschullg ulld akademischer Lehre eillen bedeuielldell Status-zuwachs
fiir die im College Lehrenden. Die bedeutelldste Elltwicklung war daraufhii1 das
amerikallische graduate school die ill den siebziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhullderts
entstalld nlld das deutsche Modell der Forschungsillstitute mit groBem Erfolg
weiterelltwickelte.
I n den letzten Jahrzehnten sind eillige der traditiollellell (und lloch immer
relevanten) Funktionen tier Tertigrbildung, wie z.B. professiollelles und Ftihrullgs-
Training, weniger stark beachtet worden, wghrend Forschung ulld Kreativitgt in
einem AusmaBe betont wurden, dass in einer Zeit der "Universit~itsausbildung ftir
60 JOSEPH BEN-DAVID
die Massen" als ullrealistisch erscheint. Daher erscheint dem Autor ein Uberdenkeli
der eillseitigeli Betonung yon Forschung im Bereich der Ulliversit~t als ulivermeid-
lich.
LA SCIENCE E T LE SYSTEME U N I V E R S I T A I R E
Ce rapport a pour but de clarifier les diff6rents aspects des fonction et organisation
des recherches scientifiques darts les syst6mes d'enseignement sup6rieur de Grande-
Bretagne, France, Allemagne et des Etats-Unis, en tra~ant leur 6volution depuis le
d6but du 19~ sigcle jusqu'5~ ce jour.
L'Allemagne, avec la fondation de l'Uliiversit6 de Berlill ell 1809, a collgu la
premi6re le concept de "l'unit6 de la recherche et de l'ellseignement" e t a ainsi
introduit pour la premiere lois la recherche ~ l'universit6. Cependallt, l'ellseigne-
merit obligatoire de la recherche ell vint darts la suite ~ 6tre pratiqu6 de plus eli plus
superficiellement, tandis que les recherches s'61oign6rent du programme d'6tude
officiel de l'universit6 pour p6n6trer dans les illstituts qui se trouvaient sous le
contr61e d ' u n professeur liomm6 5~une chaire ~ vie. Eli m~me temps, les recherches
et la formatioll de chercheurs chez les 6tudialits devinrent plus syst6matiques et
professiollnalis6es. C'est ainsi que vers la deuxi~me partie du 19~ si6cle, l'Allemagne
devint le centre molidial des sciences, et le module allemalld en Villt ~ 6tre imit6 sur
une grande 6chelle. Bien que la professiollnalisation de la recherche flit une 6volution
involontaire en Allemagne, elle a constitu6, darts d'autres pays, le but principal des
imitateurs des dispositiolls allemandes.
L'auteur compare les probl~mes d'orgallisation des sciences ell rant que professions
eli Grallde-Bretagne, France et Etats-Ullis et molltre comment le module allemand
a 6t6 adapt6 darts chacull de ces pays. Eli Gralide-Bretagne et ell France, oil les
universit6s con~ues comme institutions destin6es 5, ellseigller/~ des 61ires profession-
nelles et politiques, et oil les professeurs d'ulliversit6 avaient de route mani~re le
statut social de professionnels, l'impact n ' a pas 6t6 aussi fort qu'aux Etats-Unis.
Darts ce pays, la professiolllialisation de la recherche et de l'enseignemellt acad6mique
a repr6sent~ u n int6r~t important quallt au prestige du professeur d'ulliversit6
am6ricain. L'6volution la plus importallte fur la graduate school am6ricaine qui fit
son apparition darts les ann6es 1870, prenant comme module l'illstitut allemalld de
recherche et l'am61iorant encore avec succgs.
Au cours des derni~res d6celillies, certaines fonctions traditionnelles (et toujours
appropri6es) de l'6ducation sup~rieure, comme la formation professiollnelle et celle
de cadres sup6rieurs ollt 6t6 n6glig6es, tandis que les rectlerches scientifique et la
cr6ativit6 ont pris de l'importante dalls une proportion Ile colivenant pas ~ ulie
6poque d'6ducation sup6rieure en masse. C'est pourquoi, un r&examen de l'accent
unilat6ral mis sllr la recherche au niveau universitaire semble in6vitable.